Sorry if this is already being addressed in another thread. If so, I didn't see it.

Much is being made of McCabe's dismissal and laying blame at Trump's feet. What doesn't seem to be getting much play is the fact that the firing was recommended by McCabe's own FBI OPR officials. That tells me that there must be some substance to the accusations of "lack of candor" - FBI speak for lying. Either that or there is something else in the IG's report that warrants ending his career. Yes, Trump wanted McCabe gone for reasons other than lying but it appears the McCabe gave Sessions the ammunition to fire him for other legitimate reasons.

Seems to me someone 'recommended' Comey's firing too. I'm not buying any of it until I see some hard evidence, certainly more than Trump's and one of his attorneys' tweets. I wouldn't take their word on the time of day.

The origin of his dramatic fall stems from an internal review conducted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. That report -- the details of which have not been publicly released -- is said to conclude that McCabe misled investigators about his role in directing other officials at the FBI to speak to The Wall Street Journal about his involvement in a public corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation, according to a source briefed on it.

Looks to me like passive voice in that cite. I still want to see a copy of the IG's report, rather than just believe an unnamed source or Sessions.

I think the story as presented in the press - that the IG found wrongdoing and referred the case to the OPR, which recommended termination, is credible as reported and Iím not going to waste any breath arguing that it isnít.

What I do not understand, like everyone else, is the precise nature of the wrongdoing. But given that two impartial watchdogs found McCabe did something seriously wrong, my main thought is: leave it to Trump and Sessions to give me sympathy for someone who may not deserve it.

Regardless of the underlying (and not yet public) issues with McCabe, the hastened firing sends a chilling message to others.

I also am of the opinion that Trump would have fired Sessions had McCabe not been terminated before officially reaching retirement. So Sessions could have done this as a CYA or to protect Mueller for a bit longer.

I would certainly like to know more (and am certain we will). There was a recommendation, as noted, but I understand that we do not know what standard practice was followed after that, and what was cut short in order to remove his pension. In other words, once the recommendation is made there is normally a system in place for review of the findings, and internal hearings. It is not clear how much of this was done according to SOP.

Because of the way it was handled, whether or not it was wrong, it looks improper.

Yes, it was very insightful. Except I thought the boy was supposed to be eaten by the wolf so maybe he should have copy and pasted the entirety of his post from a more hard core stories website.

But once he's eaten by the wolf, there's no opportunity for the Wise Old Man to tell him where he went wrong, thus imparting the moral of the story.

Unless the writer decides to have the Wise Old Man stand sadly over the wolf's scat, some days later, and import the moral to the pile of what used to be the boy.

Anyway: just a note in passing: Fox News hosts are all het up about how McCabe was a LIAR and thus needed to lose his pension. But they don't seem to be too upset that Michael Flynn, who actually pleaded guilty to lying, is happily collecting his own pension.

Quote:

By admitting on Friday that he lied to the FBI while he was President Donald Trumpís national security adviser, Michael Flynn has further tarnished the reputation he built in the military, already marred by his behavior on the campaign trail, and made it almost impossible for him to hold high office again.

But he hasnít lost his lieutenant general rank or the annual pension of likely more than $100,000 that he has been receiving since he retired in 2014 after 33 years in the military.

The plea deal Flynn reached with special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into potential collusion between Russia and Trump does not mention either issue.
Thatís because there is no obligation for Flynn to surrender those service-related privileges despite his new status as an admitted criminal, experts say.

...the flipside to this is provided by this statement from McCabe's lawyer:

Quote:

The investigation described in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report was cleaved off from the larger investigation of which it was a part, its completion expedited, and the disciplinary process completed in a little over a week. Mr. McCabe and his counsel were given limited access to a draft of the OIG report late last month, did not see the final report and the evidence on which it is based until a week ago, and were receiving relevant exculpatory evidence as recently as two days ago. We were given only four days to review a voluminous amount of relevant evidence, prepare a response, and make presentations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. With so much at stake, this process has fallen far short of what Mr. McCabe deserved.

So the OIG report was part of a larger investigation: the McCabe part was "cleaved off" from it, so I'm guessing parts of it are entirely devoid of context. McCabe and his legal team had little time to review and even less time to respond. I'm going to assume the larger investigation is still going. And it appears this was "expedited" for one reason only: to fire McCabe before he qualified for his pension.

I can't say I'm fully read up on all the details of the case - but it sure as hell seems the fact he was fired literally a day or so before he was eligible to retire with pension/benefits was not a coincidence, but was deliberately timed for a maximum "fuck you" effect.

So the OIG report was part of a larger investigation: the McCabe part was "cleaved off" from it, so I'm guessing parts of it are entirely devoid of context. McCabe and his legal team had little time to review and even less time to respond. I'm going to assume the larger investigation is still going. And it appears this was "expedited" for one reason only: to fire McCabe before he qualified for his pension.

I don't know what if any appeal rights McCabe might have, but the whole thing screams "denial of due process" to me.

I didn't think I really needed to cite something that has been reported on by multiple media sources. Many, many opinion pieces and other more "traditional' news stories have implied, if not outright claimed, that it was Trump's pressure on Sessions that led to the firing. And I'm not saying that the OPR recommendation is being omitted from reporting. Its just that its not getting much emphasis. Maybe its just me but it seemed there was a pro-McCabe slant to the reporting. Perhaps he deserved to be fired, even with two days until his pension. I guess we'll just have to wait until the IG's report is released and see.

MikeF, your analysis has a problem with perceptual bias. Your mistake is to read opinion pieces on a charged political topic where there are few facts available. What possible good can come from that?

As for mainstream media: A CNN article. In mainstream sources, I believe the issue you encounter when finding bias, is that Trump is a jerk. Even justifiable acts like firing Comey or firing McCabe are acts performed by a jerk. So it seems like something unethical even when it is perfectly ethical and protective of a widely respected institution like the FBI.

773 characters on McCabe's accusation that this is an attack stemming from the election investigation.

619 characters on how McCabe learned he was fired.

525 characters on more of Trump's incessant attacks on McCabe.

320 characters on speculating about the pension.

Subtracting the introduction, well more than half the article covers the Justice Department's and Trump's view of McCabe. This view, that he should be fired, is backed up by two separate, non-partisan, investigatory bodies.

Approximately 1/2 of the remaining text is devoted to McCabe's defense and counter-accusations. The weight of anything McCabe says is not backed up by two separate, non-partisan, investigatory bodies.

Another 1/2 covers the pension and minor controversy over how he learned of his firing.

I don't see the problem here. There's no bias in terms of coverage. All the facts, as we know them, are presented. This article is only slightly less informative jasg's linked blog article. I come away from the CNN article with two major pieces of information: Trump is a dick and McCabe probably screwed up.

I didn't think I really needed to cite something that has been reported on by multiple media sources. Many, many opinion pieces and other more "traditional' news stories have implied, if not outright claimed, that it was Trump's pressure on Sessions that led to the firing. And I'm not saying that the OPR recommendation is being omitted from reporting. Its just that its not getting much emphasis. Maybe its just me but it seemed there was a pro-McCabe slant to the reporting. Perhaps he deserved to be fired, even with two days until his pension. I guess we'll just have to wait until the IG's report is released and see.

(emphasis mine)
What you may be seeing is not a pro-McCabe slant to the reporting, but instead a pro-due process, pro-rule-of-law slant to the reporting.

I'm not seeing any mainstream media outlets saying "McCabe is a sweetheart and that's why we find this troubling." But I am seeing a lot of mainstream media outlets saying "this firing violated procedure and protocol, and that's why we find this troubling."

(emphasis mine)
What you may be seeing is not a pro-McCabe slant to the reporting, but instead a pro-due process, pro-rule-of-law slant to the reporting.

I'm not seeing any mainstream media outlets saying "McCabe is a sweetheart and that's why we find this troubling." But I am seeing a lot of mainstream media outlets saying "this firing violated procedure and protocol, and that's why we find this troubling."

Normally one would expect an opportunity to confront one's accusers before punishment is meted out. One does not expect to be told by upper management "Ooooh, three more days until you can retire with a pension. Unless you get fired first! Ha ha ha, wouldn't that be too bad for you if you got fired just before you got your pension? Oooh, you're getting close to the deadline, maybe you'll get that pension after all! Oh, you didn't. Ha ha ha, you're not getting that pension that you worked over 20 years to get. See what happens when you don't pledge fealty to me?"

Normally one would expect an opportunity to confront one's accusers before punishment is meted out. One does not expect to be told by upper management "Ooooh, three more days until you can retire with a pension. Unless you get fired first! Ha ha ha, wouldn't that be too bad for you if you got fired just before you got your pension? Oooh, you're getting close to the deadline, maybe you'll get that pension after all! Oh, you didn't. Ha ha ha, you're not getting that pension that you worked over 20 years to get. See what happens when you don't pledge fealty to me?"

So, I gather you also don't know if any procedure was violated. I take it your objection is lack of "opportunity to confront accuser" and that the decision was reached too slowly leading to uncertainty over his pension (the opposite of the complaint I'm seeing elsewhere which is that they acted too quickly).

OPR issued its recommendation on Wednesday (or, at least, it was reported on Wednesday). McCabe made his case to the senior career official at Justice on Thursday. And was fired on Friday. I think that the too quickly people may have the better of the argument. Then again, I don't think you care fire someone who has retired (I don't actually know), so presumably they had to act in that window or not at all (and, given that McCabe resigned and went on terminal leave in January after the FBI Director previewed the inspector general's findings, I assume this issue was on management's radar).

What does "confronting your accuser" look like in this context? I'm not sure that's something I would expect. But I would assume he was interviewed by OPR.

The fact that they even considered firing a guy who had already announced his retirement date is laughable. The rationales may be legitimate, or they may be a mere smokescreen for the true reason- retribution. In addition, it was done with the intent of discrediting a witness and giving pause to other potential witnesses-"will they go after me if I talk? Will I lose my pension?"

This is far more than taking the pension from a career civil servant, this is obstruction of justice.

The fact that they even considered firing a guy who had already announced his retirement date is laughable. The rationales may be legitimate, or they may be a mere smokescreen for the true reason- retribution. In addition, it was done with the intent of discrediting a witness and giving pause to other potential witnesses-"will they go after me if I talk? Will I lose my pension?"

This is far more than taking the pension from a career civil servant, this is obstruction of justice.

So, I gather you also don't know if any procedure was violated. I take it your objection is lack of "opportunity to confront accuser" and that the decision was reached too slowly leading to uncertainty over his pension (the opposite of the complaint I'm seeing elsewhere which is that they acted too quickly).

OPR issued its recommendation on Wednesday (or, at least, it was reported on Wednesday). McCabe made his case to the senior career official at Justice on Thursday. And was fired on Friday. I think that the too quickly people may have the better of the argument. Then again, I don't think you care fire someone who has retired (I don't actually know), so presumably they had to act in that window or not at all (and, given that McCabe resigned and went on terminal leave in January after the FBI Director previewed the inspector general's findings, I assume this issue was on management's radar).

What does "confronting your accuser" look like in this context? I'm not sure that's something I would expect. But I would assume he was interviewed by OPR.

The investigation described in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report was cleaved off from the larger investigation of which it was a part, its completion expedited, and the disciplinary process completed in a little over a week. Mr. McCabe and his counsel were given limited access to a draft of the OIG report late last month, did not see the final report and the evidence on which it is based until a week ago, and were receiving relevant exculpatory evidence as recently as two days ago. We were given only four days to review a voluminous amount of relevant evidence, prepare a response, and make presentations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. With so much at stake, this process has fallen far short of what Mr. McCabe deserved.

...I'm not seeing any mainstream media outlets saying "McCabe is a sweetheart and that's why we find this troubling." But I am seeing a lot of mainstream media outlets saying "this firing violated procedure and protocol, and that's why we find this troubling."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falchion

What procedure did it violate? What process is McCabe due?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falchion

So, I gather you also don't know if any procedure was violated. ...

Quoted below is the information--previously posted in the thread, as running coach pointed out--that you were so eager to claim was unknown to me and to BobLibDem.

You made a rather odd argumentation choice, there--in effect claiming that our position lacked merit because we supposedly 'didn't know' something that clearly was known to all involved in the thread. But I suppose that was the best tactic you could come up with in the circumstances.

In fact, there is a great deal of information about the way McCabe was fired, with respect to the violation of usual procedures, as with this discussion featuring a Bush Administration official:

Quote:

Appearing on "CBS This Morning," CBS News senior national security analyst Fran Townsend, who was homeland security and counter-terrorism adviser to President George W. Bush, said firing the deputy director of the FBI was very unusual: "It's not that it's never happened before, but it's very unusual." ...

Jeff Session's involvement itself may constitute a violation of policy:

Quote:

Writing at the New York University School of Law-based blog Just Security, Ryan Goodman, a professor of law at NYU, made the argument on Saturday that Sessions violated his promise to recuse himself from matters involving the 2016 election — a decision Trump had been furious about for quite some time.

“Some might contend that Sessions’ recusal covered only the Clinton and Trump campaigns, and that McCabe’s firing involved the Clinton Foundation investigation as a separate matter,” Goodman wrote. “But Sessions unequivocally assured senators of his intentions during his confirmation hearings in response to a clear and specific question from the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Sen. Grassley asked a follow-up question that went right to the point. In response, Sessions very clearly said his recusal would cover any matters involving the Clinton Foundation.”

...Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert in ethics, said in an email that she agrees with Goodman’s analysis that Sessions did break his recusal promise. “Sessions promised to recuse from ‘any matters involving the Clinton Foundation,’ yet he failed to recuse from the decision of how (if at all) McCabe should be disciplined in connection with the Justice Department’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation,” she said.

David Sklansky, a Stanford law professor, concurred — Sessions himself has publicly recognized he can’t be impartial when it comes to Clinton-related matters, which presumably includes the McCabe firing, he said.

“If the basis for firing McCabe has anything to do with actions he took in connection with investigations of either the Clinton Foundation or Secretary Clinton’s email server, then the participation of Attorney General Sessions in the decision does appear to break the promise he made to Congress during his confirmation hearings,” he said in an email. “He promised to recuse himself from any participation in these investigations, because — as even Sessions recognized — there was serious reason to doubt he could be impartial, given the active role he had played in the Trump campaign. And recusal means recusal: it means he has to take himself completely out of the chain of decision.”

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said the Senate should act. “If Sessions violated the recusal promise, the [Senate Judiciary Committee] would have to agree to act on that, but the panel may split along party lines,” he said in an email.

Another general discussion, from the American Bar Association site, of the possible consequences of a firing that violated usual procedures and policies:

Quote:

... McCabe responded to his firing in a statement that said he was authorized to share information with reporters, and he answered questions “as truthfully and accurately” as he could “amidst the chaos” surrounding him.

Experts told Politico that McCabe could appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles objections when civil service workers assert they have been subjected to excessive punishment. After a decision is made, McCabe could then take his case to court.

A second option is to file a federal lawsuit that contends McCabe’s firing was so egregious that it violated his rights to due process and First Amendment freedoms. Such a lawsuit would likely argue that he was fired as a result of political pressure. ...

The investigation described in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report was cleaved off from the larger investigation of which it was a part, its completion expedited, and the disciplinary process completed in a little over a week. Mr. McCabe and his counsel were given limited access to a draft of the OIG report late last month, did not see the final report and the evidence on which it is based until a week ago, and were receiving relevant exculpatory evidence as recently as two days ago. We were given only four days to review a voluminous amount of relevant evidence, prepare a response, and make presentations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. With so much at stake, this process has fallen far short of what Mr. McCabe deserved.

I think most of them have a better grip on reality than the President. They certainly wouldn't propose that the test of whether McCabe did something wrong was whether they feeeeeeeeel like he did, as opposed to relying on the yet-to-be-known facts.

Quoted below is the information--previously posted in the thread, as running coach pointed out--that you were so eager to claim was unknown to me and to BobLibDem.

You made a rather odd argumentation choice, there--in effect claiming that our position lacked merit because we supposedly 'didn't know' something that clearly was known to all involved in the thread. But I suppose that was the best tactic you could come up with in the circumstances.

In fact, there is a great deal of information about the way McCabe was fired, with respect to the violation of usual procedures, as with this discussion featuring a Bush Administration official:

The earlier-in-the-thread provision of information on the topic of usual procedures and policies and the way they were not observed in this case:

Your tone seems a bit aggressive for a fairly uninformative response. My question was: for those who assert that due process or the rule of law (or some civil service protection) was violated, what is the basis for that?

There is BobLibDem's seemingly unique argument that DOJ acted too slowly (leaving excessive uncertainty over McCabe's pension) and his argument that it is untoward (even criminal) to fire someone who has already announced their retirement.

But what else do you provide? A quote that says firing the deputy director was unusual? I should hope so. McCabe was fired for lying to OIG... once hopes that is generally rare, and certainly in the senior ranks. Even I know not to lie to OIG. But it doesn't tell me if procedure was violated.

"Some might contend" (this is why we hate lawyers) that Sessions shouldn't have been involved in the decision, depending on how you interpret the scope of his recusal. A fair argument, I suppose. But it doesn't really address the merits of the firing (i.e., I assume you think that if Rosenstein acted on the unanimous recommendation of FBI's OPR and senior career DOJ officials on Friday, you would still object). But if that's the DOJ "procedure" you're hanging your hat on, say so and we can leave it at that.

And, a cite that claims (I think correctly) that McCabe can appeal to the MSPB (as many have, including FBI agents fired for lack of candor to OIG... they haven't been very successful, but there are those that think that the MSPB is quite employee friendly). But surely we all know that the statutory ability to appeal a decision doesn't tell us anything about the decision itself... or how it was arrived at.

So we''re back to the information that McCabe's attorney provided. Which is really just a rough timeline and the allegation that he "deserved" better. The timeline seems somewhat inconsistent with what we know (for example, McCabe resigned and went on terminal leave at the end of January when the draft OIG report came out, so I'm unconvinced that he didn't see it until the end of February. I also presume that the FBI OPR investigation began, at the latest, at that point, not a week ago.).

But, nevertheless, it leaves us with a timeline (that is actually more favorable than the one I thought):
*OIG refers the matter to FBI OPR at some point in the past.
* McCabe sees a copy of the OIG report either at the end of January (when he resigns) or February (his attorney says).
* FBI OPR recommends firing McCabe at some point in the week of March 5.
*At the end of the week of March 5, McCabe and his attorney got a copy of the FBI OPR report. (Attorney says they got the final report a week ago... this could the final OIG report, but I'm not sure.)
* They got an in-person hearing at the DAG's office with the senior career DOJ official on March 15 to argue his case.

Career federal employees enjoy a certain amount of job protection and due process rights. FBI employees have fewer than others. Notice and hearing is the traditional hallmark of due process. So, I ask again, what procedure was violated? What process was McCabe due? What "tactic" is present in those questions?

I understand the argument that a long-time employee should be allowed to retire instead of being disciplined. And I understand the argument that retirement should not excuse misconduct. And I understand that DOJ found itself against a hard deadline to pick between those options. But nothing in that analysis seems to implicate the "rule of law" unless we go back to the BobLibDem theory that no one who has announced a retirement date can be subject to adverse action for his official misconduct.

But nothing in that analysis seems to implicate the "rule of law" unless we go back to the BobLibDem theory that no one who has announced a retirement date can be subject to adverse action for his official misconduct.

...your analysis misses this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The President of the United States of America 24 Dec 2017

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The President of the United States of America Mar 17, 2018

Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!

You cannot look at the firing in isolation. You cannot ignore the greater context. The evidence is over-whelming that Trump wanted McCabe gone before he qualified for his pension: and in my most humblest of opinions he wanted him gone as both punishment for his various "misdeeds" and for Trump's own personal amusement. And surprise surprise! McCabe is gone before his pension.

You expect people to trust the process? I had zero faith in the process even before we had the statement from McCabe's lawyer. I don't trust a word that comes out of this administration. On a daily basis we are subjected to a barrage of "alternative facts." This isn't fucking normal. Don't normalise this. This isn't how you should expect your government to do business. You should expect far better than this.

A lawyer's opinion, acting in the interest of his client, is not a fact.

It's not an opinion at what point they received the OPR's response, nor how much time they were allowed to make their own response. And, as you neglected to respond to, the OPR didn't deny any part of his lawyers' argument.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now